Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Baijnath (dead) through LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Gwalior Land Deals and Finance, Lashkar and Others – Respondents
F.A. Nos. 149, 158 of 2008
Decided On : 15-03-2019
The land in dispute had already stood vested in Gwalior Improvement Trust, immediately after issuance of notification dated 6-1-1967 and from thereafter, the land forming part of Scheme No. 2-B could have been disposed of by the Gwalior Town Improvement Trust, only in accordance with the provisions of Section 83 of the M.P. Town Improvement Trusts Act, 1960. The entire sale transactions by sale deeds dated 21-4-1971 in favour of the defendants no. 1 and 2 and sale transactions by sale deeds dated 11-2-1970 and 5-6-1970 in favour of plaintiff no. 1, were in fact nothing, but a simple waste piece of paper having no sanctity in law. Since, the plaintiff no. 1 had no right or title to sell any of the disputed properties, therefore, even Puniabai could not get any right or title by virtue of sale deed dated 13-4-1976. Further, neither in favour of plaintiffs nor in favour of defendants no. 1 and 2, no document of title has been executed by the Gwalior Town Improvement Trust, in accordance with provisions of Section 83 of M.P. Town Improvement Trusts Act, 1960.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff no. 1 had purchased the land in dispute by two different sale-deeds dated 11-2-1970 and 5-6-1970. As the land had already vested in the Gwalior Improvement Trust, therefore, Durga Kachhi had no right or title in the said lands. Thus, the plaintiff no. 1 did not get any right or title from the sale-deeds dated 11-2-1970 and 5-6-1970. Therefore, the plaintiff no. 1 could not pass on any better right or title to Puniabai by registering the sale-deed dated 13-4-1976. Thus, Puniabai could not get any right or title by virtue of sale-deed dated 13-4-1976 executed in favour, by plaintiff no. 1. The defendants no. 1 and 2 had also purchased the land by Sale deed dated 21-4-1971, which had already vested in the Gwalior Town Improvement Trust and under the garb of exchange, allotment letters in respect of Plots No. 317, 318, 319, 320 and 320A were issued in their favour. Neither the defendants no. 1 and 2 could have purchased the land by sale deed dated 21-4-1971, nor any land in exchange of the property purchased by them by sale deed dated 21-4-1971 could have been given. But, it appears that the officers of the Gwalior Town Improvement Trust were out and out, trying to part away with the valuable land of the Gwalior Town Improvement Trust, by acting contrary to law.
Finding of the Court:
The entire sale transactions by sale deeds dated 21-4-1971 in favour of the defendants no. 1 and 2 and sale transactions by sale deeds dated 11-2-1970 and 5-6-1970 in favour of plaintiff no. 1, were in fact nothing, but a simple waste piece of paper having no sanctity in law. Since, the plaintiff no. 1 had no right or title to sell any of the disputed properties, therefore, even Puniabai could not get any right or title by virtue of sale deed dated 13-4-1976. Further, neither in favour of plaintiffs nor in favour of defendants no. 1 and 2, no document of title has been executed by the Gwalior Town Improvement Trust, in accordance with provisions of Section 83 of M.P. Town Improvement Trusts Act, 1960.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs and the defendants, by virtue of their respective sale-deeds executed by the private persons, could have acquired any right or title in the property or not because the entire land already vested in the Gwalior Town Improvement Trust on 6-1-1967, and all the sale-deeds executed in their favour by the private persons are subsequent to 6-1-1967.
Ratio Decidendi: Once, the land in question stood vested in the Gwalior Improvement Trust, then neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants no. 1 and 2 had got any right or title and thus, any further sale made by them would be without any right or title or authority, and therefore, the subsequent purchasers are bound by this decree as they have stepped into the shoes of the sellers.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellants (In F.A. No. 158 of 2008 and F.A. No. 149 of 2008) against the judgment and decree dated 30-4-2005 passed by VIth Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 90A/2004, so far as it relates to allowing the Counter-claim of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 is concerned, is hereby allowed and therefore, the decree passed in favour of defendants no. 1 and 2 is hereby set aside. It is held that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have no right or title in Plots Nos. 317, 318, 319, 320, 320A. So far as the counter-claim filed by the appellants in F.A. No. 158 of 2008 for declaration of their title is concerned, the same is also dismissed and it is held that the appellants in F.A. No. 158 of 2008/defendants no. 4 have no right or title in Plot No. 318. The suit filed by the plaintiffs/Appellants in F.A. No. 149 of 2008 is also dismissed and it is held that they have no right or title in Plots Nos. 317, 318, 319, 320 and 320A.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The land in dispute was already vested in the Gwalior Town Improvement Trust immediately after the notification issued on 6-1-1967. Consequently, any sale transactions made after this date without proper adherence to the provisions of Section 83 of the M.P. Town Improvement Trusts Act, 1960, are legally invalid and hold no sanctity (!) (!) .
The sale deeds executed in favor of the defendants and the plaintiffs after the land vested in the Trust are considered null and void because the sale of vested land can only be legally conducted in accordance with Section 83, which requires specific procedures including registered documents (!) (!) .
The sale transactions by private persons subsequent to the vesting notification lack legal validity, and the sale deeds executed by such private persons do not pass any ownership rights to the buyers. This is reinforced by the principle that a seller cannot convey a better title than he possesses (!) (!) .
The notification under section 71(2) of the M.P. Town Improvement Trusts Act, 1960, published in the Gazette on 6-1-1967, conclusively established that the land vested in the Gwalior Improvement Trust from that date, thereby extinguishing any pre-existing rights or titles of private owners or purchasers (!) (!) .
The sale deeds executed after the vesting notification are invalid, and the subsequent purchasers, including the plaintiffs and defendants, did not acquire any legal rights or titles to the land. Their transactions are deemed to be without authority and are therefore null and void (!) (!) .
The legal principle that "Nemo dat quod non habet" applies here, indicating that a seller cannot transfer a better title than he has himself. Since the sellers in these cases had no valid ownership rights after the vesting, they could not transfer valid titles to the buyers, including Puniabai and the defendants (!) (!) .
The proper legal procedures for disposal of vested land, as stipulated in the relevant legislation, were not followed. No registered sale, lease, or exchange deed was executed in favor of the buyers, which is necessary for transferring ownership rights in immovable property of value above Rs. 100/- (!) (!) .
The issuance of allotment letters or letters of exchange alone does not constitute a transfer of ownership rights. Only registered documents as prescribed by law can effectuate such transfer (!) (!) .
The notification and subsequent legal provisions establish that once the land vested in the Trust, all rights of private owners or purchasers were extinguished, leaving them only entitled to compensation, not ownership rights (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes that the publication of official notifications in the Gazette is conclusive proof of the law's due enactment and the vesting of land in the Trust. Any subsequent sale or transfer made in contravention of these notifications is invalid (!) (!) .
The court also clarifies that the judgments issued in such cases are in rem, meaning they are binding on all persons and not merely in personam (between the parties). This underscores that all subsequent transactions based on invalid titles are also void (!) (!) .
The appeals filed by the appellants (the legal representatives claiming ownership) are allowed, and the previous decrees recognizing the defendants' ownership are set aside. It is held that the defendants and plaintiffs had no valid rights or titles in the disputed plots, and the sale deeds executed in their favor are invalid (!) (!) .
The court directs that the land in question, having vested in the Trust, should be recovered from persons who unlawfully claimed ownership, and the authorities are empowered to initiate proceedings to take back possession in accordance with law within a specified period (!) (!) .
The principles of law reinforce that any sale, exchange, or transfer of vested land without compliance with statutory procedures is invalid, and subsequent purchasers or claimants cannot derive ownership rights from such transactions (!) (!) .
The legal framework and procedural requirements for transfer of property are strictly enforced, and the absence of registered documents or compliance with statutory provisions results in the nullification of such transactions (!) (!) .
These points collectively establish that the land in dispute was legally vested in the Gwalior Town Improvement Trust from 1967, and all subsequent transactions made without following proper legal procedures are invalid, null, and void, with the court affirming the rights of the Trust over the land.
JUDGMENT :
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
1. First Appeal No. 158 of 2008 under section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30-4-2005 passed by VIth Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 90-A/2004, by which the Counter-claim filed against the appellant has been allowed and it has been held that the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are the owners and title holders of Plot No. 318.
2. First Appeal No. 149 of 2008 under section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, has been filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 30-4-2005 passed by VIth Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 90-A/2004, by which the suit filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs has been dismissed and Counter-claim filed by respondents No. 6 and 7, against the appellants has been allowed and it has been held that the respondents No. 6 and 7 are the owners and title holders of Plot No. 317, 318, 319, 320 and 320-A.
3. By this common judgment, both the appeals shall be disposed of, as they arise out of one judgment and decree. For the sake of brevity, the facts of F.A. No. 159 of 2008 shall be considered. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 had filed a civil suit against the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 for declaration of title and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs, that the plaintiff No. 1/respondent No. 1 was the owner and in possession of Survey No. 2286/2, 2286/3, 2286/4, 2298/1, 2298/2, 2298/3, 2298/4, 2298/5, 2299/1, 2299/2, 22992/3 and 2299/4, total area 7 Bigha and 5 Biswa. The said land was purchased by the plaintiff No. 1 by two different registered Sale-deeds dated 11-2-1970 and 5-6-1970. As the aforesaid Survey Numbers were the part of the Scheme No. 2B of Gwalior Town Improvement Trust, therefore, an agreement dated 5-6-1970 was executed between the plaintiff No. 1 and the Gwalior Town Improvement Trust, according to which, the plaintiff No. 1 was authorized to carry out development work and it was agreed that the Town Improvement Trust would be entitled for supervision charges at the rate of 15%. Accordingly, 12,266 sq. gaj. of land remained in the ownership of the plaintiff No. 1 and 5859 sq. gaj. of land was left open for Public purposes. The plaintiff No. 1 completed the development work as per the agreement and the land was divided in plots and the supervision charges were also paid to the Gwalior Town Improvement Trust and the Gwalior Town Improvement Trust, also accepted the ownership and possession of the plaintiff No. 1 over the plots. The plaintiff No. 1 was a partnership Firm and the plaintiff No. 2 was one of the partners. The said partnership Firm was dissolved by deed of dissolution dated 6-9-1976 and all the partners were given their shares. Plots No. 317, 318, 319, 320 and 320-A situated in Survey No. 2298 fell to the share of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had already sold Plot No. 319 to one Puniabai by registered sale-deed dated 13-4-1976. The Gwalior Town Improvement Trust had also granted permission to Puniabai for constructing the house. It was clarified that the above mentioned 5 plots are the disputed property in the present suit.
4. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff No. 2, after dissolution of partnership, also included his sons/plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 and accordingly, an agreement dated 7-9-1976 was executed amongst the plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 and handed over the actual possession of the property in dispute to the plaintiff No. 5 for selling the same, and an arbitration award dated 2-11-1977 has also been passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction.
5. It was further pleaded that the Gwalior Town Improvement Trust, illegally allotted the plots No. 317, 318 and 319 to defendant No. 1 and plots No. 320, 320-A to defendant No. 2. On the representation made by the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2, the said allotment was cancelled by order dated 12-2-1979. The Gwalior Town Improvement Trust has been succeeded by Gwalio
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
